Paul Ryan on Crime Issues

Via On the Issues: Here are some items from Paul Ryan's record on crime-related issues:

On Crime:

  • Voted NO on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

On Drugs:

  • Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)


On Homeland Security:

  • Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
  • Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
  • Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
  • Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

On Immigration:

  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

On Technology:

  • Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)


  • Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Mitt Romney's positions on marijuana are detailed here.

The most important thing in life after your health is not your money, it's your freedom. We get the Government we elect. Don't sit this year out.

< NY Times: Paul Ryan's Cramped Vision | Olympic Closing: >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And this (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    should surprise exactly who? I'm sure no one that has been hanging around here.

    at least he VOTED (2.33 / 6) (#3)
    by diogenes on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 07:21:23 PM EST
    So in 1999 and 2000 Paul Ryan voted in ways you didn't like.  At least he didn't vote "present" on tough votes as our present president did in the early 2000's.

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    I'll take the person who doesn't vote over the person who votes for things I hate any day of the week.

    First, do no harm.


    I mentioned you the other day. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    You had said that Romney was John Kerry previously but I think you need to take that back. Even John Kerry was not as bad a politician as Mitt Romney. I could not think of a worse pick for VP than Ryan Paul. I heard where he makes his constituents pay to come to his town halls and then if they are filming confiscates their phones. I need to check that last fact out though.

    to be fair (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:15:46 PM EST
    I said "the republican version" of John Kerry.  Which we all know means "worse" :)

    Also, that was before he fully embraced the crazy.  I will admit I didn't see that coming.

    So I guess I do owe John Kerry an apology.  As much as it pains me.

    I will say this for Romney though, he's still got the old white rich vote - if my customers are any indication.  The things I don't say in order to not get fired...


    You aren't going to have (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 07:53:29 PM EST
    to worry about Jeralyn. She was already voting for Obama. It's how all the other people are going to see these votes is going to be the problem. The GOP is already writing off Florida. I have to wonder if the GOP really does not want to win. Either that or Romney is in such a bubble he just does not have an idea.

    Or... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:15:16 AM EST
    ...he decided on the pick that would take the heat off his tax returns because he is more controversial.

    And diogenes, congratulations on Ryan voting.  And yes, at least he did his job, big bonus I guess for the R's.  But really, what's the point of stating that he voted ?  Or is that what Fox is putting out as a talking point.


    I bet NOLAN Ryan endorses him (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:48:22 PM EST
    So there.  Snark.  Ahem.

    Ryan doesn't seem to have... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:31:32 PM EST
    much to offer, if anything at all.  Have the repubs written off the presidency in order to publicize their economic agenda?

    After so many years trying to hide the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by observed on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    true agenda, this is a refreshing change.
    I want Romney to defend the .082 effective tax rate he will get under Ryan's tax plan.

    Conversely, (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:01:31 AM EST
    I would like the Democratic ticket to clearly differentiate themselves from the Republicans on these issues.

    For example, Ryan's record on crime is noted above by Jeralyn.
    She also has recently posted that, Biden got the Democrats to pass so many of "the most oppressive crime bills in history..."

    With regards to civil liberties, Holder is not my poster-person.
    With regards to the economy, Geithner is... well, to quote BTD, if Obama loses it will be because of Geithner.

    With regards to the "safety net", we would seem to have a choice between evisceration and elimination.

    So - what I would like to see is the Democrats campaign as Democrats. I would like to see some of the rhetoric quoted by BTD from FDR. This is why he said "we are democrats".

    The question I have at the moment is, why are Obama and Biden Democrats?

    I would like to hear that answer from them. Directly.
    And I would love to see them confronted with the excerpts from FDR.


    I would (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:05:26 AM EST
    love to see that, too, lentinel.  For the Democrats not only to campaign as Democrats, but to govern as Democrats, as well.
    {{Sigh}}  I don't think we're going to see that, however.

    Govern as Democrats. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    That would really be something.

    "My veins run with cheese,...." (none / 0) (#8)
    by the capstan on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 07:43:53 AM EST
    That's what is between his ears, too.  (And no wonder his heart has no room for empathy.....)

    The Upside... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    ...when Romney loses would that pretty much put the final nail in the Ryan budget coffin ?

    You know, (3.00 / 4) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    I'd like to hear from Obama what he intends to do about the pending collapse of Medicare and Social Security.

    Lots of other folks would too.

    Instead we here that Romney was mean to his dog.

    Somehow that doesn't answer my question.


    Medicare is not collapsing, jim... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    in fact, Medicare costs have gone down, and growth over the next decade is expected to stay low; I posted a link to that effect the other day.

    Medicare and Medicaid spending per enrollee will grow at rates of 3.1 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively, over the next ten years -- well below the projected growth rate of 5.0 percent for private insurance and somewhat less than the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. (See figure.) John Holahan and Stacey McMorrow of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, base these estimates on the latest projections of national health expenditures prepared by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    Social Security can be "fixed" by simply raising the income cap; there's no need to raise the retirement age, or means-test it or chain it to the CPI - those are things proposed by people who say they want to save Social Security, but whose agenda appears to me more along the lines of killing it.

    Lie to yourself if you must, but please stop perpetuating the lie that Medicare and SS are on the verge of collapse.  They aren't.



    Well played Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    Romney just wants to treat the elderly like the family dog... though there is plenty of room in the family car with a little rearranging, it's just more convenient for Mitt if they are on the roof or dead.

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:39:34 AM EST
    I wish someone would just call it what it is: Social Darwinism or Prosperity Gospel. Hey if you weren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you should just lay out on the street and die. No golden years anymore for you sucker! You're nothing more than a leech on society.

    Ya can't even call it Social Darwinism.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    they don't wanna give up their government perks...an army defending their foreign investments, the cops defending their mansions, the rigged markets, the copyright and patent protections....just the bones poor & working people get they wanna get rid of.  True Social Darwinism would be a better deal than what they're selling, believe it or not.



    doesn't this assume... (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by diogenes on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    Don't these rosy projections assume large cuts in payments to doctors which never happen because Congress puts them off?  Even at current rates my Medicare mother just got a letter from her doctor closing her off because the doctor no longer sees Medicare patients.
    And Social Security won't go broke until 2033 because it can cash in Treasury Bills--so the US government will go broke first unless it can find other suckers to buy our debt in ten years or so.  Social Security has no real assets (Stocks, bonds, real estate, etc).